------=_Part_27109_28277374.1152896897671
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
I want to add that I also support whatever decision Bethany makes. I hope
our discussion is not upsetting to her. I'm sure she knows we have the best
intentions. I guess I feel that it is none of my business what she decides
to do or not do, but since the door was open, it was difficult to stay
silent. Eugene brings up a good point about how affective punitive measures
really are on drivers and Rob makes a really good point about lawyers
getting the most monetary benefit from lawsuit cases. Also, I agree with
Eugene that this man is probably suffering guilt and trauma from the
accident too (since it was an accident) and one might argue that that is
justice enough (not that we want him to suffer, even though I am angry along
with others). Perhaps suing him would only serve to magnify everyone's
psychological damage and, therefore, I wonder about it's value.
On 7/14/06, Daniel Reeves wrote:
>
> Let's discuss by email and just have poll results on the whiteboard.
> (Updating whiteboard now -- pasting responses below for the
> improvetheworld archives. The original email is below if you missed it.)
>
> Quick responses:
> Yes, the lawyer is a kind and decent one (in fact, a fellow cyclist,
> recommended highly by the bike club president) who has offered to deal
> with the baseline insurance claims -- hospital and bike -- for Bethany pro
> bono and who did not push in the slightest for anything in the JUSTICE
> argument (which in fact was all me).
> The "nine iron" hypothetical was purely a mental exercise to decide on
> what the right amount might be. If the answer is "infinity" then all the
> more reason to get something rather than nothing.
> The point about future expenses (like dental) is a really good one.
> I don't know about other charges against the driver. Maybe Bethany can
> reply about that (I know she can only type one-handed -- the hand with the
> broken thumb! -- so far though.)
>
>
> Snapshot of the straw poll at
> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves/wb/cycling
>
> THE ANTI-LITIGATION ARGUMENT:
>
> Rob Felty - although I am not totally against litigation, I think that my
> opinion is different enough from the rest to justify putting it under
> anti-litigation. I am opposed to suing for pain and suffering, because I
> feel that it is not possible to quantify in terms of dollars (or yootles
> for that matter -- I do think that desires can be quantified, but I think
> it is more difficult to quantify pain and suffering). I would be in favor
> of suing for lost compensation, medical expenses, etc., which certainly
> are quantifiable. From my understanding, most insurance already covers
> lost compensation to some extent in these cases, though if one earns quite
> a bit of money, it would probably not cover it. I also disagree with
> Danny's example of allowing one to get hit in the face with a nine iron.
> This is completely different, because of the intentions involved. As
> others have said, this was clearly an accident, and not done with intent.
> Other parameters to consider. I do believe that the people who profit
> the
> most from such cases are the lawyers. Also consider that frequently the
> monetary amount of these cases is frequently highly influenced by the
> wealth of the person being sued. And I think that many lawyers probably
> try to convince their clients to sue for as much as possible. Also
> consider the time and energy spent in suing someone. This gets down to the
> details. If one feels that $10,000 is an appropriate amount to sue for,
> and the case would be settled in two months, it seems worth the trouble.
> If one only sues for $1,000 and the case takes two years, then it does not
> seem worth it to me.
> All that being said, it is ultimately Bethany's decision, and I will
> support whatever that is, should she choose to make it publicly known. And
> I hope that she recovers fully, and I am very angry at the person who hit
> her.
>
> THE JUSTICE ARGUMENT:
>
> Matt Rudary - To me, this is not even a difficult question. This situation
> is precisely the reason that these types of damages were introduced in the
> first place. As Danny's analysis indicated, Bethany's loss here is more
> than just the dollar amount on the hospital bills. Clearly, asking for an
> amount that is enough to set Bethany up for a life of luxury would be
> inappropriate. But some amount between $10k and $10M would be reasonable
> and just.
>
> JMM - Bethany suffered a greater loss than the $$ cost of hospital etc.
> Pain, fear that may affect the way she lives her life in the future, etc.
> There is good reason to believe that this was not mere chance, a roll of
> the dice: the driver did not exercise reasonable caution, performed
> negligently, and thus is the direct and responsible cause of Bethany's
> loss. It is reasonable to ask that the loss be compensated. It is
> socially responsible, and efficient (because of incentives) for people to
> be the reasonably forseeable costs of their own actions. (There is also a
> good social argument for *punitive* damages as a deterrent for other
> drivers, but usually imposing that punishment is the role of the state.
> Do you know if the county prosecutor is contemplating filing charges for
> criminal negligence or reckless endangerment or some such?)
>
> KML - I second jeff's opinion and think matt's lower bound is too low.
> reply by Matt: I agree, I just took the numbers from Danny's e-mail.
>
> Dave - I'd definitely ask for something, though not millions of dollars,
> or even hundreds of k. At an absolute bare minimum, compensation for lost
> wages from time off work, and compensation for time in general spent at
> the hospital etc. More reasonably it should also include some additional
> for pain and suffering. Maybe it's not reasonable to say that there's a
> price where you'd actually agree to being hit by a truck, but maybe
> there's a point where post-facto the unhappiness of having had to go
> through it all is balanced by "but hey, check out the sweet giant screen
> plasma television I bought to watch movies while I was recouping" or some
> such. Or "check out my sweet new hybrid car".
> The ideal solution would be to come to some rational agreement to such
> with the driver and settle everything out of court without involving
> lawyers and letting everything get thus inflated. But since the money is
> likely coming from the driver's insurance rather than his pocket, this may
> not be possible. You'd probably have to convince the insurance company
> that if they don't come to a reasonable settlement out of court then they
> will be facing a huge lawsuit, even if in reality it's not worth going
> through. Unless, of course, the corporate machine of the insurance world
> tried to deny you anything reasonable because they could, in which case my
> instinct changes to wanting to not let them get away with that, since via
> intimidation of random folks they probably usually do.
>
> CK - I would think that above and beyond medical bills, missed pay for
> work, bike replacement costs, and costs for her caretakers' travel
> expenses and missed work there should be some other compensation for her
> loss. When I was visiting, I saw that the man who hit her had sent her
> flowers with a note that basically said "Sorry for the inconvenience". I
> believe it was a sincere gesture, with the wrong choice of words. While he
> is an older man, that does not give him the right to less strict penalty
> for his actions. We all know he didn't hit Bethany on purpose and so that
> makes it difficult to rationalize punishing him, however, I think it is
> important that we teach a lesson to all drivers about operating their
> vehicles around bicycles. In his case, I believe he should have his
> license taken away. Someone THAT oblivious to what is going on should not
> be on the road - innocent grandpa or not. I do feel for him, as he may
> not have a lot of money or health insuarance himself because of our
> country's disrespect for the health of the elderly who are not well-off,
> but nonetheless, this should not be taken lightly. My impression is that
> this will not be stopping Bethany from going out again, allbeit with extra
> caution, but it is impossible that this experience would not affect her
> psychologically in some way.
> No matter how brave she is (and she is very), this qualifies as a
> traumatic experience that would not have happened if it weren't for a
> negligent driver. Therefore, I vote for justice. I have NO idea how to
> place an amount of money on this, as I don't know the extent of the
> medical bills, etc., but I would imagine they are over 10k themselves. I
> suppose that is what a lawyer is for. One more point: while I agree that
> our country has gotten out of hand about lawsuits, this is QUITE different
> from someone falling on the freshly mopped floors of Meijer and it is
> clear that Bethany is not out to make money due to her misfortune. She
> deserves justice, however.
>
> Monica - I agree with Dave, but Insurance companies plan on people suing
> them. They hire entire teams of lawyers just for this. There could be
> future complications and surgeries after the statute of limitations runs
> out; there could be scars, or more permanent damages. Along with lost
> wages, there should be compensation for the other things Bethany would be
> doing in lieu of recovering, and all possible future problems need to be
> accounted for in an initial law suit. Also, there is nothing Bethany did
> to instigate this. Its very different from suing the surgeon who messed
> up breast implants. Somebody broke the law (running a stop sign), and
> severely hurt an otherwise healthy person. I guess it comes down to what
> price can you put on enjoyment of life? Paying for you to have an extra
> luxury in the future is the way insurance companies say they are sorry.
> If this accident had been the other way around: If Bethany had been
> recklessly driving a truck and hit a grandfather on a bicycle (or in a
> wheelchair), his injuries would probably have been more severe, or he
> would have died. This could have resulted in a vehicular manslaughter
> charge, loss of license, and insurance would have paid his family for
> their emotional loss (far more than the price of the bike and hospital
> bills).
>
> Eugene - as an economist-wannabe, I would certainly agree with Danny,
> Chris, Jeff, and others, thereby putting me in the "justice" bracket.
> However, I feel that several things need to be taken into consideration
> here also. First of all, do we really believe that punitive measures stop
> reckless drivers? In theory, they certainly should if drivers are
> rational. But then again, I suspect that anyone (or at least most people)
> who hits a pedestrian is probably going to go through some emotional
> trauma as a result. At least I am sure I would. Not to say, of course,
> that they shouldn't be held responsible for their actions, but to suggest
> that perhaps the problem isn't fundamentally about incentives (unless
> punishments are extremely severe). Second, we often hear about the
> "jerks" who take advantage of the legal system. I'd like to suggest that
> perhaps many of them go through the same cognitive process as us right
> now, reaching perhaps the same conclusions. And since it's very difficult
> as an outsider to tell whether they are merely rationalizing their actions
> or genuinely pursuing the same agenda as us, perhaps we should be careful
> judging other lawsuits. Finally, the question of what is just in a given
> situation is a patently difficult one. After all, justice is frequently
> another name for revenge. Having said all this, I certainly believe that
> pain, suffering, and lost wages require compensation. The real question
> is, how much...
>
>
>
> > You've checked with a lawyer to see what options you have in Michigan?
> >
> > Anyway, with injuries of this sort I think there's a reasonable
> potential
> > for long-term problems, particularly dental. I think it would be
> > appropriate to try to obtain some amount of money as a buffer for that,
> plus
> > for Bethany's opportunity costs.
> >
> > If she finds this morally ambiguous, she can always put the money away,
> only
> > using it for injury related costs and bestow it on some worthwhile
> charity
> > later in life when it's clear she'll no longer bear any costs associated
> > with the accident.
> >
> > -Brian
> >
> > On 7/14/06, Daniel Reeves wrote:
> >>
> >> Here are two points of view on whether Bethany should ask for more than
> >> just reimbursement for the hospital bill plus cost of her bike. Please
> >> chime in with your opinion! It could be very influential.
> >>
> >> The ANTI-LITIGATION argument:
> >> No, this represents the worst of what's wrong with this
> country. Don't
> >> use elaborate rationalizations for being a greedy opportunist cashing
> in
> >> on misfortune. This kind of lawsuit is an absolutely massive drain on
> >> society, both in wasted money and in missed opportunities / paranoia
> >> ("sorry, we can't do that for liability reasons"). Don't be a part of
> it!
> >>
> >> The JUSTICE argument:
> >> Asking for much more than the actual hospital and bike costs is the
> >> morally right thing to do. Agreed that abuse of the legal system (or
> the
> >> brokenness of the system itself) is a huge and despicable problem. It
> >> would be wrong, for example, to go for punitive damages. But asking
> the
> >> driver to redress your pain and suffering and lost productivity (if not
> >> done disingenuously) is absolutely legitimate. As we know from
> yootles,
> >> these have a measurable price. If the driver (bear with the absurd
> >> hypotheticalness of this) asked you if he could smash up your face with
> a
> >> nine iron for 10 million dollars, you'd say yes (assume of course ex
> post
> >> analysis, ie, knowing the surgery would succeed, etc). If he offered
> 10
> >> thousand, you'd say no. (Adjust the spread if I'm presuming wrong.)
> >> Somewhere in between is the fair and just amount he should give you.
> >> The difference between this and greedy opportunists is a fundamental
> >> one. The difference between "you ran a stop sign and smashed my face
> in
> >> with your truck" and "I slipped in your grocery store" is as clear as
> day.
> >> There are a lot of selfish assholes abusing the concept of liability
> but
> >> that doesn't mean you have to err on the other extreme, refusing to
> hold
> >> someone fully liable for life-and-death negligence.
> >>
> >>
> >> Straw Poll here:
> >> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves/wb/cycling
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves"
> >>
> >> If God dwells inside us, like some people say, I sure hope he
> >> likes enchiladas, because that's what He's getting!
> >> -- Jack Handey
> >>
> >
>
> --
> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves"
>
> Last night I lay in bed looking up at the
> stars in the sky and I thought to myself,
> "Where is the ceiling?!"
>
>
--
Fortune cookie gems:
"Creating is the greatest proof of being alive."
"Sometimes the best choice is to choose all options."
~ck~
------=_Part_27109_28277374.1152896897671
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
I want to add that I also support whatever decision Bethany makes. I hope our
discussion is not upsetting to her. I'm sure she knows we have the best
intentions. I guess I feel that it is none of my business what she decides to
do or not do, but since the door was open, it was difficult to stay silent.
Eugene brings up a good point about how affective punitive measures really are
on drivers and Rob makes a really good point about lawyers getting the most
monetary benefit from lawsuit cases. Also, I agree with Eugene that this man
is probably suffering guilt and trauma from the accident too (since it was an
accident) and one might argue that that is justice enough (not that we want him
to suffer, even though I am angry along with others). Perhaps suing him would
only serve to magnify everyone's psychological damage and, therefore, I wonder
about it's value.
On 7/14/06, Daniel Reeves < dreeves Æ umich.edu > wrote:
Let's discuss by email and just have poll results on the whiteboard. (Updating
whiteboard now -- pasting responses below for the improvetheworld archives.
The original email is below if you missed it.) Quick responses:
Yes, the lawyer is a kind and decent one (in fact, a fellow cyclist,
recommended highly by the bike club president) who has offered to deal with the
baseline insurance claims -- hospital and bike -- for Bethany pro
bono and who did not push in the slightest for anything in the JUSTICE
argument (which in fact was all me). The "nine iron" hypothetical was purely
a mental exercise to decide on what the right amount might be. If the answer
is "infinity" then all the
more reason to get something rather than nothing. The point about future
expenses (like dental) is a really good one. I don't know about other charges
against the driver. Maybe Bethany can reply about that (I know she can only
type one-handed -- the hand with the
broken thumb! -- so far though.) Snapshot of the straw poll at
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves/wb/cycling THE ANTI-LITIGATION
ARGUMENT:
Rob Felty - although I am not totally against litigation, I think that my
opinion is different enough from the rest to justify putting it under
anti-litigation. I am opposed to suing for pain and suffering, because I
feel that it is not possible to quantify in terms of dollars (or yootles for
that matter -- I do think that desires can be quantified, but I think it is
more difficult to quantify pain and suffering). I would be in favor
of suing for lost compensation, medical expenses, etc., which certainly are
quantifiable. From my understanding, most insurance already covers lost
compensation to some extent in these cases, though if one earns quite
a bit of money, it would probably not cover it. I also disagree with Danny's
example of allowing one to get hit in the face with a nine iron. This is
completely different, because of the intentions involved. As
others have said, this was clearly an accident, and not done with intent.
Other parameters to consider. I do believe that the people who profit the most
from such cases are the lawyers. Also consider that frequently the
monetary amount of these cases is frequently highly influenced by the wealth
of the person being sued. And I think that many lawyers probably try to
convince their clients to sue for as much as possible. Also
consider the time and energy spent in suing someone. This gets down to the
details. If one feels that $10,000 is an appropriate amount to sue for, and the
case would be settled in two months, it seems worth the trouble.
If one only sues for $1,000 and the case takes two years, then it does not
seem worth it to me. All that being said, it is ultimately Bethany's
decision, and I will support whatever that is, should she choose to make it
publicly known. And
I hope that she recovers fully, and I am very angry at the person who hit her.
THE JUSTICE ARGUMENT: Matt Rudary - To me, this is not even a difficult
question. This situation is precisely the reason that these types of damages
were introduced in the
first place. As Danny's analysis indicated, Bethany's loss here is more than
just the dollar amount on the hospital bills. Clearly, asking for an amount
that is enough to set Bethany up for a life of luxury would be
inappropriate. But some amount between $10k and $10M would be reasonable and
just. JMM - Bethany suffered a greater loss than the $$ cost of hospital etc.
Pain, fear that may affect the way she lives her life in the future, etc.
There is good reason to believe that this was not mere chance, a roll of the
dice: the driver did not exercise reasonable caution, performed negligently,
and thus is the direct and responsible cause of Bethany's
loss. It is reasonable to ask that the loss be compensated. It is socially
responsible, and efficient (because of incentives) for people to be the
reasonably forseeable costs of their own actions. (There is also a
good social argument for *punitive* damages as a deterrent for other drivers,
but usually imposing that punishment is the role of the state. Do you know if
the county prosecutor is contemplating filing charges for
criminal negligence or reckless endangerment or some such?) KML - I second
jeff's opinion and think matt's lower bound is too low. reply by Matt: I
agree, I just took the numbers from Danny's e-mail.
Dave - I'd definitely ask for something, though not millions of dollars, or
even hundreds of k. At an absolute bare minimum, compensation for lost wages
from time off work, and compensation for time in general spent at
the hospital etc. More reasonably it should also include some additional for
pain and suffering. Maybe it's not reasonable to say that there's a price where
you'd actually agree to being hit by a truck, but maybe
there's a point where post-facto the unhappiness of having had to go through
it all is balanced by "but hey, check out the sweet giant screen plasma
television I bought to watch movies while I was recouping" or some
such. Or "check out my sweet new hybrid car". The ideal solution would be to
come to some rational agreement to such with the driver and settle everything
out of court without involving lawyers and letting everything get thus
inflated. But since the money is
likely coming from the driver's insurance rather than his pocket, this may not
be possible. You'd probably have to convince the insurance company that if they
don't come to a reasonable settlement out of court then they
will be facing a huge lawsuit, even if in reality it's not worth going
through. Unless, of course, the corporate machine of the insurance world tried
to deny you anything reasonable because they could, in which case my
instinct changes to wanting to not let them get away with that, since via
intimidation of random folks they probably usually do. CK - I would think that
above and beyond medical bills, missed pay for work, bike replacement costs,
and costs for her caretakers' travel
expenses and missed work there should be some other compensation for her loss.
When I was visiting, I saw that the man who hit her had sent her flowers with
a note that basically said "Sorry for the inconvenience". I
believe it was a sincere gesture, with the wrong choice of words. While he is
an older man, that does not give him the right to less strict penalty for his
actions. We all know he didn't hit Bethany on purpose and so that
makes it difficult to rationalize punishing him, however, I think it is
important that we teach a lesson to all drivers about operating their vehicles
around bicycles. In his case, I believe he should have his
license taken away. Someone THAT oblivious to what is going on should not be
on the road - innocent grandpa or not. I do feel for him, as he may not have a
lot of money or health insuarance himself because of our
country's disrespect for the health of the elderly who are not well-off, but
nonetheless, this should not be taken lightly. My impression is that this will
not be stopping Bethany from going out again, allbeit with extra
caution, but it is impossible that this experience would not affect her
psychologically in some way. No matter how brave she is (and she is very),
this qualifies as a traumatic experience that would not have happened if it
weren't for a
negligent driver. Therefore, I vote for justice. I have NO idea how to place
an amount of money on this, as I don't know the extent of the medical bills,
etc., but I would imagine they are over 10k themselves. I
suppose that is what a lawyer is for. One more point: while I agree that our
country has gotten out of hand about lawsuits, this is QUITE different from
someone falling on the freshly mopped floors of Meijer and it is
clear that Bethany is not out to make money due to her misfortune. She
deserves justice, however. Monica - I agree with Dave, but Insurance companies
plan on people suing them. They hire entire teams of lawyers just for this.
There could be
future complications and surgeries after the statute of limitations runs out;
there could be scars, or more permanent damages. Along with lost wages, there
should be compensation for the other things Bethany would be
doing in lieu of recovering, and all possible future problems need to be
accounted for in an initial law suit. Also, there is nothing Bethany did to
instigate this. Its very different from suing the surgeon who messed
up breast implants. Somebody broke the law (running a stop sign), and
severely hurt an otherwise healthy person. I guess it comes down to what price
can you put on enjoyment of life? Paying for you to have an extra
luxury in the future is the way insurance companies say they are sorry. If
this accident had been the other way around: If Bethany had been recklessly
driving a truck and hit a grandfather on a bicycle (or in a
wheelchair), his injuries would probably have been more severe, or he would
have died. This could have resulted in a vehicular manslaughter charge, loss
of license, and insurance would have paid his family for
their emotional loss (far more than the price of the bike and hospital bills).
Eugene - as an economist-wannabe, I would certainly agree with Danny, Chris,
Jeff, and others, thereby putting me in the "justice" bracket.
However, I feel that several things need to be taken into consideration here
also. First of all, do we really believe that punitive measures stop reckless
drivers? In theory, they certainly should if drivers are
rational. But then again, I suspect that anyone (or at least most people) who
hits a pedestrian is probably going to go through some emotional trauma as a
result. At least I am sure I would. Not to say, of course,
that they shouldn't be held responsible for their actions, but to suggest that
perhaps the problem isn't fundamentally about incentives (unless punishments
are extremely severe). Second, we often hear about the
"jerks" who take advantage of the legal system. I'd like to suggest that
perhaps many of them go through the same cognitive process as us right now,
reaching perhaps the same conclusions. And since it's very difficult
as an outsider to tell whether they are merely rationalizing their actions or
genuinely pursuing the same agenda as us, perhaps we should be careful judging
other lawsuits. Finally, the question of what is just in a given
situation is a patently difficult one. After all, justice is frequently
another name for revenge. Having said all this, I certainly believe that pain,
suffering, and lost wages require compensation. The real question
is, how much... > You've checked with a lawyer to see what options you
have in Michigan? > > Anyway, with injuries of this sort I think there's
a reasonable potential > for long-term problems, particularly dental. I
think it would be
> appropriate to try to obtain some amount of money as a buffer for that,
plus > for Bethany's opportunity costs. > > If she finds this morally
ambiguous, she can always put the money away, only
> using it for injury related costs and bestow it on some worthwhile charity
> later in life when it's clear she'll no longer bear any costs associated
> with the accident. > > -Brian >
> On 7/14/06, Daniel Reeves < dreeves Æ umich.edu > wrote:
>> >> Here are two points of view on whether Bethany should ask for
more than >> just reimbursement for the hospital bill plus cost of her
bike. Please
>> chime in with your opinion! It could be very influential. >>
>> The ANTI-LITIGATION argument: >> No, this represents the
worst of what's wrong with this country. Don't >> use elaborate
rationalizations for being a greedy opportunist cashing in
>> on misfortune. This kind of lawsuit is an absolutely massive drain
on >> society, both in wasted money and in missed opportunities /
paranoia >> ("sorry, we can't do that for liability reasons"). Don't be
a part of it!
>> >> The JUSTICE argument: >> Asking for much more than
the actual hospital and bike costs is the >> morally right thing to do.
Agreed that abuse of the legal system (or the >> brokenness of the system
itself) is a huge and despicable problem. It
>> would be wrong, for example, to go for punitive damages. But asking
the >> driver to redress your pain and suffering and lost productivity
(if not >> done disingenuously) is absolutely legitimate. As we know
from yootles,
>> these have a measurable price. If the driver (bear with the absurd
>> hypotheticalness of this) asked you if he could smash up your face
with a >> nine iron for 10 million dollars, you'd say yes (assume of
course ex post
>> analysis, ie, knowing the surgery would succeed, etc). If he offered
10 >> thousand, you'd say no. (Adjust the spread if I'm presuming wrong.)
>> Somewhere in between is the fair and just amount he should give you.
>> The difference between this and greedy opportunists is a
fundamental >> one. The difference between "you ran a stop sign and
smashed my face in >> with your truck" and "I slipped in your grocery
store" is as clear as day.
>> There are a lot of selfish assholes abusing the concept of liability
but >> that doesn't mean you have to err on the other extreme, refusing
to hold >> someone fully liable for life-and-death negligence.
>> >> >> Straw Poll here: >>
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves/wb/cycling >> >> --
>>
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves"
>> >> If God dwells inside us, like some people say, I sure hope
he
>> likes enchiladas, because that's what He's getting! >> --
Jack Handey >> > -- http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves
- - search://"Daniel Reeves" Last night I lay in bed looking up at the
stars in the sky and I thought to myself, "Where is the ceiling?!"
-- Fortune cookie gems: "Creating is the greatest proof of being alive."
"Sometimes the best choice is to choose all options." ~ck~
------=_Part_27109_28277374.1152896897671--
|
